Factors affecting perceptions of medical errors

The purpose of the study was to assess how three factors affect subjects' perceptions of a medical error made in a hypothetical scenario. The factors were (i) type of compensation system, (ii) degree of procedural “voice” present in the physician-patient relationship, and (iii) magnitude of damage sustained by the patient. Perceptions were defined to include subjects' (i) emotional reactions to the incident, (ii) causal attributions about the incident, (iii) evaluations of the faimess of the compensation systems, and (iv) compensation demands. Results indicated that damage magnitude was the only factor that affected subjects' emotional reactions to the described incident and their compensation requests. When damage was severe, subjects reacted more negatively to the event and demanded greater compensation. Subjects rated the no-fault system and greater voice conditions as more fair. In general, subjects causally analyzed the error incident in a manner that was less blameworthy of the physician when procedural justice was high, especially if this was combined with a no-fault compensation system. Results were discussed in terms of Wexler and Winick's (1991) model of therapeutic jurisprudence.